cratylus- 第2部分

names；　for　nature　is　not　opposed　either　to　art　or　to　law。　　But　vocal

imitation；　like　any　other　copy；　may　be　imperfectly　executed；　and　in　this

way　an　element　of　chance　or　convention　enters　in。　　There　is　much　which　is

accidental　or　exceptional　in　language。　　Some　words　have　had　their　original

meaning　so　obscured；　that　they　require　to　be　helped　out　by　convention。　　But

still　the　true　name　is　that　which　has　a　natural　meaning。　　Thus　nature；　art；

chance；　all　combine　in　the　formation　of　language。　　And　the　three　views

respectively　propounded　by　Hermogenes；　Socrates；　Cratylus；　may　be　described

as　the　conventional；　the　artificial　or　rational；　and　the　natural。　　The　view

of　Socrates　is　the　meeting…point　of　the　other　two；　just　as　conceptualism　is

the　meeting…point　of　nominalism　and　realism。



We　can　hardly　say　that　Plato　was　aware　of　the　truth；　that　'languages　are

not　made；　but　grow。'　　But　still；　when　he　says　that　'the　legislator　made

language　with　the　dialectician　standing　on　his　right　hand；'　we　need　not

infer　from　this　that　he　conceived　words；　like　coins；　to　be　issued　from　the

mint　of　the　State。　　The　creator　of　laws　and　of　social　life　is　naturally

regarded　as　the　creator　of　language；　according　to　Hellenic　notions；　and　the

philosopher　is　his　natural　advisor。　　We　are　not　to　suppose　that　the

legislator　is　performing　any　extraordinary　function；　he　is　merely　the

Eponymus　of　the　State；　who　prescribes　rules　for　the　dialectician　and　for

all　other　artists。　　According　to　a　truly　Platonic　mode　of　approaching　the

subject；　language；　like　virtue　in　the　Republic；　is　examined　by　the　analogy

of　the　arts。　　Words　are　works　of　art　which　may　be　equally　made　in　different

materials；　and　are　well　made　when　they　have　a　meaning。　　Of　the　process

which　he　thus　describes；　Plato　had　probably　no　very　definite　notion。　　But

he　means　to　express　generally　that　language　is　the　product　of　intelligence；

and　that　languages　belong　to　States　and　not　to　individuals。



A　better　conception　of　language　could　not　have　been　formed　in　Plato's　age；

than　that　which　he　attributes　to　Socrates。　　Yet　many　persons　have　thought

that　the　mind　of　Plato　is　more　truly　seen　in　the　vague　realism　of　Cratylus。

This　misconception　has　probably　arisen　from　two　causes：　　first；　the　desire

to　bring　Plato's　theory　of　language　into　accordance　with　the　received

doctrine　of　the　Platonic　ideas；　secondly；　the　impression　created　by

Socrates　himself；　that　he　is　not　in　earnest；　and　is　only　indulging　the

fancy　of　the　hour。



1。　　We　shall　have　occasion　to　show　more　at　length；　in　the　Introduction　to

future　dialogues；　that　the　so…called　Platonic　ideas　are　only　a　semi…

mythical　form；　in　which　he　attempts　to　realize　abstractions；　and　that　they

are　replaced　in　his　later　writings　by　a　rational　theory　of　psychology。　

（See　introductions　to　the　Meno　and　the　Sophist。）　　And　in　the　Cratylus　he

gives　a　general　account　of　the　nature　and　origin　of　language；　in　which　Adam

Smith；　Rousseau；　and　other　writers　of　the　last　century；　would　have

substantially　agreed。　　At　the　end　of　the　dialogue；　he　speaks　as　in　the

Symposium　and　Republic　of　absolute　beauty　and　good；　but　he　never　supposed

that　they　were　capable　of　being　embodied　in　words。　　Of　the　names　of　the

ideas；　he　would　have　said；　as　he　says　of　the　names　of　the　Gods；　that　we

know　nothing。　　Even　the　realism　of　Cratylus　is　not　based　upon　the　ideas　of

Plato；　but　upon　the　flux　of　Heracleitus。　　Here；　as　in　the　Sophist　and

Politicus；　Plato　expressly　draws　attention　to　the　want　of　agreement　in

words　and　things。　　Hence　we　are　led　to　infer；　that　the　view　of　Socrates　is

not　the　less　Plato's　own；　because　not　based　upon　the　ideas；　2nd；　that

Plato's　theory　of　language　is　not　inconsistent　with　the　rest　of　his

philosophy。



2。　　We　do　not　deny　that　Socrates　is　partly　in　jest　and　partly　in　earnest。　

He　is　discoursing　in　a　high…flown　vein；　which　may　be　compared　to　the

'dithyrambics　of　the　Phaedrus。'　　They　are　mysteries　of　which　he　is

speaking；　and　he　professes　a　kind　of　ludicrous　fear　of　his　imaginary

wisdom。　　When　he　is　arguing　out　of　Homer；　about　the　names　of　Hector's　son；

or　when　he　describes　himself　as　inspired　or　maddened　by　Euthyphro；　with

whom　he　has　been　sitting　from　the　early　dawn　（compare　Phaedrus　and　Lysias；

Phaedr。）　and　expresses　his　intention　of　yielding　to　the　illusion　to…day；

and　to…morrow　he　will　go　to　a　priest　and　be　purified；　we　easily　see　that

his　words　are　not　to　be　taken　seriously。　　In　this　part　of　the　dialogue　his

dread　of　committing　impiety；　the　pretended　derivation　of　his　wisdom　from

another；　the　extravagance　of　some　of　his　etymologies；　and；　in　general；　the

manner　in　which　the　fun；　fast　and　furious；　vires　acquirit　eundo；　remind　us

strongly　of　the　Phaedrus。　　The　jest　is　a　long　one；　extending　over　more　than

half　the　dialogue。　　But　then；　we　remember　that　the　Euthydemus　is　a　still

longer　jest；　in　which　the　irony　is　preserved　to　the　very　end。　　There　he　is

parodying　the　ingenious　follies　of　early　logic；　in　the　Cratylus　he　is

ridiculing　the　fancies　of　a　new　school　of　sophists　and　grammarians。　　The

fallacies　of　the　Euthydemus　are　still　retained　at　the　end　of　our　logic

books；　and　the　etymologies　of　the　Cratylus　have　also　found　their　way　into

later　writers。　　Some　of　these　are　not　much　worse　than　the　conjectures　of

Hemsterhuis；　and　other　critics　of　the　last　century；　but　this　does　not　prove

that　they　are　serious。　　For　Plato　is　in　advance　of　his　age　in　his

conception　of　language；　as　much　as　he　is　in　his　conception　of　mythology。　

（Compare　Phaedrus。）



When　the　fervour　of　his　etymological　enthusiasm　has　abated；　Socrates　ends；

as　he　has　begun；　with　a　rational　explanation　of　language。　　Still　he

preserves　his　'know　nothing'　disguise；　and　himself　declares　his　first

notions　about　names　to　be　reckless　and　ridiculous。　　Having　explained

compound　words　by　resolving　them　into　their　original　elements；　he　now

proceeds　to　analyse　simple　words　into　the　letters　of　which　they　are

composed。　　The　Socrates　who　'knows　nothing；'　here　passes　into　the　teacher；

the　dialectician；　the　arranger　of　species。　　There　is　nothing　in　this　part

of　the　dialogue　which　is　either　weak　or　extravagant。　　Plato　is　a　supporter

of　the　Onomatopoetic　theory　of　language；　that　is　to　say；　he　supposes　words

to　be　formed　by　the　imitation　of　ideas　in　sounds；　he　also　recognises　the

effect　of　time；　the　influence　of　foreign　languages；　the　desire　of　euphony；

to　be　formative　principles；　and　he　admits　a　certain　element　of　chance。　　But

he　gives　no　imitation　in　all　this　that　he　is　preparing　the　way　for　the

construction　of　an　ideal　language。　　Or　that　he　has　any　Eleatic　speculation

to　oppose　to　the　Heracleiteanism　of　Cratylus。



The　theory　of　language　which　is　propounded　in　the　Cratylus　is　in　accordance

with　the　later　phase　of　the　philosophy　of　Plato；　and　would　have　been

regarded　by　him　as　in　the　main　true。　　The　dialogue　is　also　a　satire　on　the

philological　fancies　of　the　day。　　Socrates　in　pursuit　of　his　vocation　as　a

detector　of　false　knowledge；　lights　by　accident　on　the　truth。　　He　is

guessing；　he　is　dreaming；　he　has　heard；　as　he　says　in　the　Phaedrus；　from

another：　　no　one　is　more　surprised　than　himself　at　his　own　discoveries。　

And　yet　some　of　his　best　remarks；　as　for　example　his　view　of　the　derivation

of　Greek　words　from　other　languages；　or　of　the　permutations　of　letters；　or

again；　his　observation　that　in　speaking　of　the　Gods　we　are　only　speaking　of

our　names　of　them；　occur　among　these　flights　of　humour。



We　can　imagine　a　character　having　a　profound　insight　into　the　nature　of　men

and　things；　and　yet　hardly　dwelling　upon　them　seriously；　blending

inextricably　sense　and　nonsense；　sometimes　enveloping　in　a　blaze　of　jests

the　most　serious　matters；　and　then　again　allowing　the　truth　to　peer

through；　enjoying　the　flow　of　his　own　humour；　and　puzzling　mankind　by　an

ironical　exaggeration　of　their　absurdities。　　Such　were　Aristophanes　and

Rabelais；　such；　in　a　different　style；　were　Sterne；　Jean　Paul；　Hamann；

writers　who　sometimes　become　unintelligible　through　the　extravagance　of

their　fancies。　　Such　is　the　character　which　Plato　intends　to　depict　in　some

of　his　dialogues　as　the　Silenus　Socrates；　and　through　this　medium　we　have

to　receive　our　theory　of　language。



There　remains　a　difficulty　which　seems　to　demand　a　more　exact　answer：　　In

what　relation　does　the　satirical　or　etymological　portion　of　the　dialogue

stand　to　the　serious？　　Granting　all　that　can　be　said　about　the　provoking

irony　of　Socrates；　about　the　parody　of　Euthyphro；　or　Prodicus；　or

Antisthenes；　how　does　the　long　catalogue　of　etymologies　furnish　any　answer

to　the　question　of　Hermogenes；　which　is　evidently　the　main　thesis　of　the

dialogue：　　What　is　the　truth；　or　correctness；　or　principle　of　names？



After　illustrating　the　nature　of　correctness　by　the　analogy　of　the　arts；

and　then；　as　in　the　Republic；　ironically　appealing　to　the　authority　of　the

Homeric　poems；　Socrates　shows　that　the　truth　or　correctness　of　names　can

only　be　ascertained　by　an　appeal　to　etymology。　　The　truth　of　names　is　to　be

found　in　the　analysis　of　their　elements。　　But　why　does　he　admit　etymologies

which　are　absurd；　based　on　Heracleitean　fancies；　fourfold　interpretations

of　words；　impossible　unions　and　separations　of　syllables　and　letters？



1。　　The　answer　to　this　difficulty　has　been　already　anticipated　in　part：　

Socrates　is　not　a　dogmatic　teacher；　and　therefore　he　puts　on　this　wild　and

fanciful　disguise；　in　order　that　the　truth　may　be　permitted　to　appear：　　2。

as　Benfey　remarks；　an　erroneous　example　may　illustrate　a　principle　of

language　as　well　as　a　true　one：　　3。　many　of　these　etymologies；　as；　for

example；　that　of　dikaion；　are　indicated；　by　the　manner　in　which　Socrates

speaks　of　them；　to　have　been　current　in　his　own　age：　　4。　the　philosophy　of

language　had　not　made　such　progress　as　would　have　justified　Plato　in

propounding　real　derivations。　　Like　his　master　Socrates；　he　saw　through　the

hollowness　of　the　incipient　sciences　of　the　d